Recently I've seen a lot of finals in double elimination tournaments, namely the Blizzard Invitationals, MLG, and the IPL2. While the system is good for players and the tournament itself, I find the finals to be less exiting. Much of that has to do with the fact that most finals so far has ended in 2 games. The system is set up so that the player from the winners bracket only have to win one Best Of (3-5), while the player coming from the losers bracket has to win two. The harsh reality is, the player from the Winners bracket has a 50% chance to face up with the same guy he beat in the Winners finals, which makes him the clear favorite from the get-go, in addition to his huge advantage, only having to win 1 best of whatever.
I'm not saying the system isn't fair, the guy from the winners bracket has so far been the best player, and he deserves a headstart, but I do think the head start he gets in these tournaments is over the top. What I would suggest is the big tournaments having a normal best of 7 for finals, where the guy from the winners bracket leads 1-0 when entering game 1.
What do you, TL'ers, think about this? Are the finals fine the way they are or would the entertainment value of a semi-regular best of 7 surpass it? Or do you perhaps have other suggestions as to how the finals would make it the more clear highlight of the tournament.
Poll: How should the finals of double-elimination tournaments be set up?
Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game. (264)
44%
It is fine the way it is. (236)
39%
Regular bo7-9 with no advantage for the player in the winners bracket. (84)
14%
None of the above (please share your immaculate suggestion in the comment section). (18)
3%
602 total votes
Your vote: How should the finals of double-elimination tournaments be set up?
(Vote): It is fine the way it is. (Vote): Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game. (Vote): Regular bo7-9 with no advantage for the player in the winners bracket. (Vote): None of the above (please share your immaculate suggestion in the comment section).
the guy in the winners bracket has already beaten the previous guy 2-1 or 2-0 and deservers the upper hand, just like the guy in the losers bracket got an extra life and fought all the way to the finals , in the end the better player will win and there's nothing wrong with double elim
100% agreed. While it is completely fair their is nothing better than watching the NASL finals or the GSL2 finals where the series is ridiculously close and comes down to the last game, and the players have split games.
I would say the up 1-0 in a Bo7 would be the best compromise between fairness and viewer excitement.
I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
I've been thinking about this for the last few days. Did some1 from losers bracket ever win a final ? i can't remember one, but i also don't watch everything. Makes the finals quite underwhelming.
But you gotta see it from the players perspective. 2nd place is really nice in terms of price money..
The OP makes it seem like there is the same system for the finals of MLG as for IPL and blizz invitational. That is not true.
The MLG extended series is total bullshit while the 2 bo(x) in ILP and blizz invitational actually make sense.
I have no problem with making it a single bo(x) series with a small advantage (1 game) given to the guy from the winner bracket, as it was done in Takes home story cup for example.
I don't see how you could justify reducing the winner's advantage for as nebulous a reason as this. I think if you want to avoid a double-elimination finals you just have to get rid of double-elimination.
I agree with the OP, the two bo3 system is fair, but not very exciting for the viewers and giving the player from the winnner's bracket no advantage is more exciting, but unfair. The best compromise is having a bo7 with a 1-0 lead, which is still a significant advantage, but the viewers get at the very least 3 games and usually even more than that.
On August 15 2011 23:16 Redox wrote: The OP makes it seem like there is the same system for the finals of MLG as for IPL and blizz invitational. That is not true.
The MLG extended series is total bullshit while the 2 bo(x) in ILP and blizz invitational actually make sense.
I have no problem with making it a single bo(x) series with a small advantage (1 game) given to the guy from the winner bracket, as it was done in Takes home story cup for example.
So you'd be okay with an MLG extended series "total bullshit", if the first Bo3 went 2-1?
On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote: I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket?
This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place).
There has to be an advantage going from the winner's bracket, on the other hand, there is nothing more underwhelming than a BO3 finals. And I don't care how many there are.
Maybe make it BO3 and if the guy from the LB wins, than it's a BO5?
The winner's bracket winner would have already won if it was a single elimination. It isn't fair to him that he played so hard to reach the and not have any kind of advantage over the loser's bracket winner. Plus, double elimination means you have to lose twice, so there is nothing wrong with 2 best of X series.
Its not about "having the upper hand" its about set losses in bracket. The person in grand finals from winners bracket has not lost to anyone yet, while the person in losers bracket has. If a bracket is double elimination, a person still in the winners bracket has to lose twice to be knocked out of the tournament and that holds true even in grand finals. The person coming from the losers bracket has already lost 1 set which means he can't lose another one or he will be eliminated.
On August 15 2011 22:59 Ballack wrote: I'm not saying the system isn't fair, the guy from the winners bracket has so far been the best player, and he deserves a headstart, but I do think the head start he gets in these tournaments is over the top. What I would suggest is the big tournaments having a normal best of 7 for finals, where the guy from the winners bracket leads 1-0 when entering game 1.
I look at each Match as it's own particular instance. You play to find out who is the beast AT THAT MOMENT. I understand the other way of doing things, because it helps determine the best overall throughout the tournament and prevents someone from winning a final who went down 5-6 over the course of the tournament. That being said, you're never going to have a perfect format for that, and the intensity is ramped up so much when you have it all on the line.
Starcraft just works so much better in a straight up format where no previous advantages can be incurred. Much more intense and exciting.
And the advantage held by the winner bracket player is that they had to play fewer games. That's a fairly significant advantage.
I agree with the feeling there is no jeopardy when it comes to the finals of a tourney since the person in the losers brackets has to win two sets. The thing is, its fair but not exciting.
I think the whole format needs to change IMO.
I know people like the whole losers/winners bracket, it creates great stories of comebacks etc but as stated the finals can be a bit lack luster since its fair from easy to comeback.
Instead why not have all games played in a best of 7 once you get past the top 32 and the finals a best of 9? You cant deny that a BO 7 or 9 is a good enough setting to determine who is the better player (at that event).
And if there is still need for a player comeback storyline then why not have a just the open or lower levels have a winner/losers bracket where its all BO3's to get you into the top 32. You can keep the whole "the winner of the losers bracket" has to win 2 sets of BO7 etc but this is all just to get into the top 32/16 whatever. From there on in its all Single elimination BO7/9 etc.
Im not 100% on how mlg setup their tournaments but it might sound similar, but IPL (Season 1 at least) etc is kinda weird to have the finals of a tournament come down to the winner of winners bracket against the winner of the losers.Kinda anticlimactic unless they make a massive comeback which is rare.
The people voting "Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game" are bending the rules of double elim to try to create excitement at the cost of fairness. I can't back that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I prefer single elimination tournaments past Ro16 anyways.
For the spectators, the up by 1 game rule is better because it keeps suspense and keeps the score pretty close to start of with.
For actual competitive fairness, the player who has yet to drop a set should be allowed to drop a full set because his opponent was allowed to drop a full set. If the WB finalist loses, he only lost 1 extra game, while if the LB finalist loses, he lost two full sets.
Group Stage or extended group stage into single eliminations. The biggest sporting competition in the world does this, there is nothing wrong with it.
NASL Finals and TSL Finals overshadowed every other competitions simply because they had a good BO7, every other way is terrible and ruins the whole experience.
On August 16 2011 00:05 Chill wrote: The people voting "Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game" are bending the rules of double elim to try to create excitement at the cost of fairness. I can't back that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I prefer single elimination tournaments past Ro16 anyways.
How is that? I think it is too great of an advantage for the guy from the winners bracket if its 2 Bo3's. There needs to be some sort of advantage for the winners bracket player, but it needs to be small, because going through the losers bracket playing more games to get to the finals is a punishment in of itself. As a nice side effect, it most likely creates longer finals. The possibility of big finals ending with 2 really short games is just really uncool. I think 2 Bo5's would be better, though this could end up being too long overall.
It'd be more fun to watch, but it just isn't fair for the top player from the winners bracket. Everyone else needed to lose twice, but since you played so well and got to the grand final without losing, you're now going to be eliminated if you lose just one round?
On August 16 2011 00:05 Chill wrote: The people voting "Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game" are bending the rules of double elim to try to create excitement at the cost of fairness. I can't back that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I prefer single elimination tournaments past Ro16 anyways.
I agree on all points. It doesn't adequately reward the winner bracket winner, since he's only up a game as opposed to the loser bracket winner being allowed to lose a full match. Sure, it's possible to argue that the winner's reward is not going to losers, but that's blatantly unfair. Just because they never lost, they have to have less of a safety net? That's absurd, and borderline punishing the winner for not taking advantage of his first elimination earlier.
At the same time, watching a 2x Bo5 finals is way too long, and too demanding of the player coming from losers, yet having 2x Bo3 is boring for spectators if the winner bracket winner wins 2 sets. Having a double into single is much more fair and better for spectators.
On August 16 2011 00:05 Chill wrote: The people voting "Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game" are bending the rules of double elim to try to create excitement at the cost of fairness. I can't back that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I prefer single elimination tournaments past Ro16 anyways.
How is that?
A double elimination bracket means you have to lose two "series" (however that is defined in each game) to be eliminated. Giving the winner a one game advantage isn't the same as losing a series. You're actually penalizing him relative to literally every other player for never losing.
On August 15 2011 23:06 hysterial wrote: I would say the up 1-0 in a Bo7 would be the best compromise between fairness and viewer excitement.
Agree with this dude. The huge advantage the upper bracket guy has in some of these finals makes me feel that the grand finals win is not as legitimate.
But of course Chill is right, it is bending the double elim rule. I still think it is justified though. The UB guy is still advantaged from less fatigue, and he does still get a head start in the grand finals.
The player from the loser's bracket has to win two BoX because the first one knocks the winner down into the loser's bracket (figuratively) and enables them to play the second BoX on equal standing, thus deciding the ultimate winner.
Having it be just one BoX with a small advantage for the player coming from the WB essentially means that every other player can lose a series and still be in the tournament, except for the guy who won everything so far. He loses one series and doesn't get any second chances. Pretty ridiculous to punish a player for winning in the name of "viewer excitement".
The thing is called Double Elimination because you have to lose twice to be eliminated. Simple.
On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote: I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket?
This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place).
Yes I know exactly how double elimination works. What I am suggesting is that the winner's bracket finalist already has an advantage due to not having to go through the grind of the lower bracket. Take the IPL for example. + Show Spoiler +
White-ra made it to the grand finals having only to play 5 BoX sets, while Nerchio had to play 8 BoX
. Think of it as a sort of roundabout way of giving players byes into the next round.
On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote: I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket?
This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place).
Yes I know exactly how double elimination works. What I am suggesting is that the winner's bracket finalist already has an advantage due to not having to go through the grind of the lower bracket. Take the IPL for example. + Show Spoiler +
White-ra made it to the grand finals having only to play 5 BoX sets, while Nerchio had to play 8 BoX
. Think of it as a sort of roundabout way of giving players byes into the next round.
How about loser bracket finals then? If one player came from the winners' finals, and one person grinded through the loser bracket, shouldn't the latter get an advantage by your definition?
I can't back these grey rules. If you make a format it should be fair. You can't start at what's most exciting and then go backwards trying to justify it.
On August 16 2011 00:21 Bobster wrote: It's as Chill says.
The player from the loser's bracket has to win two BoX because the first one knocks the winner down into the loser's bracket (figuratively) and enables them to play the second BoX on equal standing, thus deciding the ultimate winner.
Having it be just one BoX with a small advantage for the player coming from the WB essentially means that every other player can lose a series and still be in the tournament, except for the guy who won everything so far. He loses one series and doesn't get any second chances. Pretty ridiculous to punish a player for winning in the name of "viewer excitement".
The thing is called Double Elimination because you have to lose twice to be eliminated. Simple.
No, I'd rather see this that all players are allowed to lose one series except in the grand finals, because it weights more than the other sets beforehand. And the player in the grand finals who lost the one series will have a small disadvantage.
Besides, calling this "punishment" is kind of ridiculous from the mathematical point of view. Just because he hasn't lost yet doesn't make it more likely that he loses. No matter how many games have been lost or won beforehand, both players will always be on equal footing if they face each other once again. All the sets lost beforehand will not change the probabilities of the outcome of the current match.
I think the grand final should be a straight BO-7. Well I see many people saying they should do either A or B and trying to find a middle grand that gives the player from the winner bracket some sort of edge worthy of have his/her position, I think the advantage is already "built-in" to the system.
Sheth lost to Select and was dropped to the losers bracket. At that time he had to face Huk in the losers bracket right away. Upon winning against Huk (Amazing Games) he then rejoined the top rank in order to compete in the final. The finals in which they played immediately after. The advantage to the player in the winners bracket is that he gets to rest, get something to drink, analyze the players in the loser bracket, work off the adrenaline, talk to teammates, etc.
To me that is enough of an advantage for me to be happy with the tournament structure. Pending the matches are all played one after another, without delays.
Sorry wrong tournament lol. Thanks for the correction. Watch so many of these its hard to keep them all separate. Meant Battle.Net tournament not IPL.
If I designed a tournament, it would be some sort of multiple elimination or group system until one round before the prizes start, so that every player faces elimination when they're playing for prizes. (A seed should be sufficient reward for coming out first in a group/never dropping a set in double-elim.)
On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote: I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket?
This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place).
Yes I know exactly how double elimination works. What I am suggesting is that the winner's bracket finalist already has an advantage due to not having to go through the grind of the lower bracket. Take the IPL for example. + Show Spoiler +
White-ra made it to the grand finals having only to play 5 BoX sets, while Nerchio had to play 8 BoX
. Think of it as a sort of roundabout way of giving players byes into the next round.
I can't back these grey rules. If you make a format it should be fair. You can't start at what's most exciting and then go backwards trying to justify it.
Mirror matchups on symmetrical, two-spawn maps are the only thing that's fully fair, but we don't make tournaments out of those because it's not as exciting.
On August 16 2011 00:29 DemiAlbedo wrote: I think the grand final should be a straight BO-7. Well I see many people saying they should do either A or B and trying to find a middle grand that gives the player from the winner bracket some sort of edge worthy of have his/her position, I think the advantage is already "built-in" to the system.
Sheth lost to Select and was dropped to the losers bracket. At that time he had to face Huk in the losers bracket right away. Upon winning against Huk (Amazing Games) he then rejoined the top rank in order to compete in the final. The finals in which they played immediately after. The advantage to the player in the winners bracket is that he gets to rest, get something to drink, analyze the players in the loser bracket, work off the adrenaline, talk to teammates, etc.
To me that is enough of an advantage for me to be happy with the tournament structure. Pending the matches are all played one after another, without delays.
Wait, wasn't that NA BNet invite? Otherwise, can't explain the fact that 3 NA players compete for medals. ^^"
On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote: I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket?
This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place).
Yes I know exactly how double elimination works. What I am suggesting is that the winner's bracket finalist already has an advantage due to not having to go through the grind of the lower bracket. Take the IPL for example. + Show Spoiler +
White-ra made it to the grand finals having only to play 5 BoX sets, while Nerchio had to play 8 BoX
. Think of it as a sort of roundabout way of giving players byes into the next round.
How about loser bracket finals then? If one player came from the winners' finals, and one person grinded through the loser bracket, shouldn't the latter get an advantage by your definition?
I can't back these grey rules. If you make a format it should be fair. You can't start at what's most exciting and then go backwards trying to justify it.
Um, no. My post wasn't about giving anyone advantages or disadvantages. It's about how playing fewer games is already enough of an advantage unto itself.
On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote: I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket?
This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place).
Yes I know exactly how double elimination works. What I am suggesting is that the winner's bracket finalist already has an advantage due to not having to go through the grind of the lower bracket. Take the IPL for example. + Show Spoiler +
White-ra made it to the grand finals having only to play 5 BoX sets, while Nerchio had to play 8 BoX
. Think of it as a sort of roundabout way of giving players byes into the next round.
I can't back these grey rules. If you make a format it should be fair. You can't start at what's most exciting and then go backwards trying to justify it.
Mirror matchups on symmetrical, two-spawn maps are the only thing that's fully fair, but we don't make tournaments out of those because it's not as exciting.
Sorry, we are talking about SC not rock, papper, scissors.
Fair or unfair always depends on the point of view, and there is nothing as "absolutely fair". Even the 2BoX rules is unfair because the player with the worse win-to-loss ratio through the course of the tournament overall (including finals) can win the whole thing.
I have to say im surprised at the polls suggesting most pple think its not fine the way it is.
In double elimination tournaments, where players get 2 chances at winning the trophy, it is absolutely the only FAIR way to have it so that the final match between the two players at the end should have 1-2 possible sets.
If you dont agree with this system, i highly suggest you rethink it completely and thoroughly, as to the reason for it to be that way. If you still do not understand it, what that means is that you think its fair that the player who has lost a series to someone deserves an unfair advantage over the guy who is at the winners bracket and hasn't lost a single set. That is what is unfair.
edit- I agree with Cyrix about the MLG system, that absolutely has to change. It is 100% not a fair system.
If you use double elimination - use double elimination. It's unfair if everyone is allowed to lose once, except the one guy who won the winnerbracket final.
If you want an exciting final - then go single elimination like the NASL. But then dont cry, when people like Ret fall in the first round (ok you may cry about seeding^^). You cant say "everyone should have a second chance" and then say "Oh but the one guy there should only have one chance!"
On August 16 2011 00:37 Cartel wrote: I have to say im surprised at the polls suggesting most pple think its not fine the way it is.
Same here.
Then again, there are also always 25-30% of people who are fine with the shitty extended series rule at MLG, so it's hard to fathom wtf people are thinking sometimes.
On August 16 2011 00:21 Bobster wrote: It's as Chill says.
The player from the loser's bracket has to win two BoX because the first one knocks the winner down into the loser's bracket (figuratively) and enables them to play the second BoX on equal standing, thus deciding the ultimate winner.
Having it be just one BoX with a small advantage for the player coming from the WB essentially means that every other player can lose a series and still be in the tournament, except for the guy who won everything so far. He loses one series and doesn't get any second chances. Pretty ridiculous to punish a player for winning in the name of "viewer excitement".
The thing is called Double Elimination because you have to lose twice to be eliminated. Simple.
No, I'd rather see this that all players are allowed to lose one series except in the grand finals, because it weights more than the other sets beforehand.
That seems exceedingly arbitrary to me.
It's a double elimination format except for the finals. I don't think that's logical or particularly fair.
Double elimination is a good tournament format the way it is, I don't see a need to change it.
I always thought that Bo5/7 with a 1-0 lead for the person coming from the Winners bracket is the way to go. It is a very good compromise between fairness and viewer-friendliness. But I believe for the finals (and only for the finals) two BoX or even an extended series would be fine.
On August 16 2011 00:40 ProxyKnoxy wrote: I don't agree at all that the winner of the upper bracket should get an advantage. I don't know why but I just plain disagree with it.
ALL finals should be a BO7 in my opinion, although that would probably never happen, the MLG finals were a let down as it was so short
I can understand why you would believe the system is unfair, but thats where there may be a misunderstanding.
The upper bracket player does not have an advantage.
On August 15 2011 23:49 Sveet wrote: Its not about "having the upper hand" its about set losses in bracket. The person in grand finals from winners bracket has not lost to anyone yet, while the person in losers bracket has. If a bracket is double elimination, a person still in the winners bracket has to lose twice to be knocked out of the tournament and that holds true even in grand finals. The person coming from the losers bracket has already lost 1 set which means he can't lose another one or he will be eliminated.
this. double elimination
it's the most logical and is applied in every other video game tournament that uses double elimination. how does this guy's post not make absolute sense? it will also create hype finals anyways, because the advantage isn't impossible since the bo x are separate.
having a person up 1 game out of a best of 7 makes no logical sense. it is arbitrary (1 out of 7?)
1 set = bo 3 (for semi-finals in losers/winners onwards should be bo5)
How is a bo7/9 more exciting than a bo3/5? I don't see it... it's more games, sure, but the sc2 scene doesn't lack för games to watch. Onesided finals in a bo7/9 suck way more than onesided finals in a bo3/5
I like the true double-elim format best. That is if you come from the losers bracket you need to win two series, from the winners just one. It's fair and has the potential to be really exciting.
The OP mixes up extended series and double-elim, and they are two different things.
On August 16 2011 00:37 Cartel wrote: I have to say im surprised at the polls suggesting most pple think its not fine the way it is.
In double elimination tournaments, where players get 2 chances at winning the trophy, it is absolutely the only FAIR way to have it so that the final match between the two players at the end should have 1-2 possible sets.
I think that nearly all people that vote for "up one game" would also say that it is "fine the way it is", just that they prefer a slightly different modell, as long as the player from the Winners Bracket gets some kind of advantage. We can still disagree if the adjustment is fair (since it is quite arbitrary), but right now 80% of the votes want to give an advantage to this player, which I believe is a pretty reasonable number.
On August 16 2011 00:48 GGruss wrote: How is a bo7/9 more exciting than a bo3/5? I don't see it... it's more games, sure, but the sc2 scene doesn't lack för games to watch. Onesided finals in a bo7/9 suck way more than onesided finals in a bo3/5
I like the true double-elim format best. That is if you come from the losers bracket you need to win two series, from the winners just one. It's fair and has the potential to be really exciting.
The OP mixes up extended series and double-elim, and they are two different things.
people who still don't understand what real double elimination is, check here:
I've always been a fan of: - series starts out best of 3 or 5 or whatever the format is (preferably 5) - winner's bracket player only needs to win that bo3/5 - if the loser's bracket player wins the series, it becomes a bo5/7 with the scores carrying over.
Sort of an extended series, but not really. It gives the winner's bracket player a pretty significant advantage at first, but he can lose it pretty quickly if he makes mistakes.
Personally I feel it's a bit silly to justify the way it's done from it being named double elimination. I'd personally want a smaller advantage that the WB gets, since these 2 game finals are such a killer. The WB deserves an advantage, but I don't really agree to the reasoning that because it's called double elimination, it must be that he's up 1 BoX.
Sure if the WB looses, he'd just loose 1 BoX, but he still lost one that he started with an advantage.
On August 16 2011 01:02 Zarahtra wrote: Personally I feel it's a bit silly to justify the way it's done from it being named double elimination. I'd personally want a smaller advantage that the WB gets, since these 2 game finals are such a killer. The WB deserves an advantage, but I don't really agree to the reasoning that because it's called double elimination, it must be that he's up 1 BoX.
Sure if the WB looses, he'd just loose 1 BoX, but he still lost one that he started with an advantage.
it's not an advantage that the winner gets, it's even footing... everyone else has lost a BoX, so he needs to lose TWO BoX to lose the grand finals.
a smaller advantage for the WB? that's not fair for him because everyone else used the exact same advantage.
On August 15 2011 22:59 Ballack wrote: I'm not saying the system isn't fair, the guy from the winners bracket has so far been the best player, and he deserves a headstart, but I do think the head start he gets in these tournaments is over the top. What I would suggest is the big tournaments having a normal best of 7 for finals, where the guy from the winners bracket leads 1-0 when entering game 1.
So you basically mean like in the Homestory Cup?
I didn't catch the finals (funnily pretty much the only broadcasted set I missed from that tourney), but if the Homestory Cup ran like that in the finals, then yes.
On August 16 2011 00:40 ProxyKnoxy wrote: I don't agree at all that the winner of the upper bracket should get an advantage. I don't know why but I just plain disagree with it.
ALL finals should be a BO7 in my opinion, although that would probably never happen, the MLG finals were a let down as it was so short
I can understand why you would believe the system is unfair, but thats where there may be a misunderstanding.
The upper bracket player does not have an advantage.
He doesn't? :o Surely only having to win one Bo3 compared to the two of the other is an advantage over the other?
Double best of whatever has never really been the BW standard. It was 1 game up. There were exceptions, but that was the norm. I don't see a reason to change that. Of course double elim wasn't as much used in bw as it is now is sc2, but still.
I like this alot. Make the Ro 4 Bo5, finals Bo7. I think this is the best solution. I agree that the current format is less exciting, especially with the prospect of a repeated series with one player having a big advantage for the finals.
Bo9... kuz I want more epic games No advantage... why should the the player from the WINNER's bracket need an advantage anyways? (I say the player that wins the winners bracket should just get a small money bonus for their winner's domination)
On August 16 2011 01:02 Zarahtra wrote: Personally I feel it's a bit silly to justify the way it's done from it being named double elimination. I'd personally want a smaller advantage that the WB gets, since these 2 game finals are such a killer. The WB deserves an advantage, but I don't really agree to the reasoning that because it's called double elimination, it must be that he's up 1 BoX.
Sure if the WB looses, he'd just loose 1 BoX, but he still lost one that he started with an advantage.
it's not an advantage that the winner gets, it's even footing... everyone else has lost a BoX, so he needs to lose TWO BoX to lose the grand finals.
a smaller advantage for the WB? that's not fair for him because everyone else used the exact same advantage.
Tbh the main point is that fair depends quite a lot of your POV. Heck the WB player can still have lost more games than the LB player.
Seeing as the rules apply the same to every player, no matter who wins the finals of the WB, my POV= it's pretty fair.
On August 16 2011 01:28 how2TL wrote: o_O
You're all haters of extended series in MLG but it's okay if it's an extended series with one game up instead of potentially 2.
Ah w/e double elim is fair you guys are too much
Extended series is imo wrong because both players are at LB, they have both lost a series and don't deserve any advantage over one another. The finals, the WB deserves an advantage, but not such a large one as 1 straight BoX.
On August 16 2011 01:26 ShatterZer0 wrote: Bo9... kuz I want more epic games No advantage... why should the the player from the WINNER's bracket need an advantage anyways? (I say the player that wins the winners bracket should just get a small money bonus for their winner's domination)
He deserves an advantage, because else WB finals could become 'fixed', where you are pretty certain you will win the LB finals, so you'd rather not show your hand until the grand finals.
It's fair. There are ways to make it into a single series and still keep it pretty fair, but it wouldn't change the possibility of the finals ending in a small amount of games.
On August 16 2011 00:44 KevinIX wrote: i like the idea to make it double elim until the Semifinals where it becomes a simple single elimination best of 5/7
I absolutely agree with this and think it's a fantastic idea.
Double elimination could be said to be had to make it harder for the top players to be cheesed out. However if at the Top 4-8 it becomes single elimanation - well upper bracker or lower bracket, everything is evened up, and it makes for a very exciting conclusion to the tournament.
I have been giving it a lot of thought, and seriously, if you think this format is unfair, give it some thought first, and then try replying telling me how.
On August 16 2011 01:02 Zarahtra wrote: Personally I feel it's a bit silly to justify the way it's done from it being named double elimination. I'd personally want a smaller advantage that the WB gets, since these 2 game finals are such a killer. The WB deserves an advantage, but I don't really agree to the reasoning that because it's called double elimination, it must be that he's up 1 BoX.
Sure if the WB looses, he'd just loose 1 BoX, but he still lost one that he started with an advantage.
it's not an advantage that the winner gets, it's even footing... everyone else has lost a BoX, so he needs to lose TWO BoX to lose the grand finals.
a smaller advantage for the WB? that's not fair for him because everyone else used the exact same advantage.
Tbh the main point is that fair depends quite a lot of your POV. Heck the WB player can still have lost more games than the LB player.
Seeing as the rules apply the same to every player, no matter who wins the finals of the WB, my POV= it's pretty fair.
You're all haters of extended series in MLG but it's okay if it's an extended series with one game up instead of potentially 2.
Ah w/e double elim is fair you guys are too much
Extended series is imo wrong because both players are at LB, they have both lost a series and don't deserve any advantage over one another. The finals, the WB deserves an advantage, but not such a large one as 1 straight BoX.
On August 16 2011 01:26 ShatterZer0 wrote: Bo9... kuz I want more epic games No advantage... why should the the player from the WINNER's bracket need an advantage anyways? (I say the player that wins the winners bracket should just get a small money bonus for their winner's domination)
He deserves an advantage, because else WB finals could become 'fixed', where you are pretty certain you will win the LB finals, so you'd rather not show your hand until the grand finals.
This is not an advantage that only the WB gets. It's equal to everyone else, but everyone else already used that advantage up. So i don't see how it's not fair.
It's always been like this and i'm fine with the system, giving a hudge advantage for the player in the WB is fair, we've seen often times the player from the LB winning 2BO3 in a row and it's super exciting when it happens.
On August 16 2011 01:02 Zarahtra wrote: Personally I feel it's a bit silly to justify the way it's done from it being named double elimination. I'd personally want a smaller advantage that the WB gets, since these 2 game finals are such a killer. The WB deserves an advantage, but I don't really agree to the reasoning that because it's called double elimination, it must be that he's up 1 BoX.
Sure if the WB looses, he'd just loose 1 BoX, but he still lost one that he started with an advantage.
it's not an advantage that the winner gets, it's even footing... everyone else has lost a BoX, so he needs to lose TWO BoX to lose the grand finals.
a smaller advantage for the WB? that's not fair for him because everyone else used the exact same advantage.
Tbh the main point is that fair depends quite a lot of your POV. Heck the WB player can still have lost more games than the LB player.
Seeing as the rules apply the same to every player, no matter who wins the finals of the WB, my POV= it's pretty fair.
On August 16 2011 01:28 how2TL wrote: o_O
You're all haters of extended series in MLG but it's okay if it's an extended series with one game up instead of potentially 2.
Ah w/e double elim is fair you guys are too much
Extended series is imo wrong because both players are at LB, they have both lost a series and don't deserve any advantage over one another. The finals, the WB deserves an advantage, but not such a large one as 1 straight BoX.
On August 16 2011 01:26 ShatterZer0 wrote: Bo9... kuz I want more epic games No advantage... why should the the player from the WINNER's bracket need an advantage anyways? (I say the player that wins the winners bracket should just get a small money bonus for their winner's domination)
He deserves an advantage, because else WB finals could become 'fixed', where you are pretty certain you will win the LB finals, so you'd rather not show your hand until the grand finals.
This is not an advantage that only the WB gets. It's equal to everyone else, but everyone else already used that advantage up. So i don't see how it's not fair.
And because he didn't use it up, he gets awarded 1 win. Call it that the WB is fighting for that 1 win in the finals and playing fewer games if you will.
A tournament winner is the last man standing. To knock a player out of a double elimination tournament they must be defeated in two series. How is this so fucking difficult for people to grasp? It's not a novel form for organizing tournaments. The finals do suck relative to single elimination, but in return for one less exciting series you get TWICE as many series total and a format that is more conducive to the winner being the "better" player.
I don't really like the idea of keeping a format the same up until the final match in the tournament. Doesn't seem right to me. I also don't like gimmicks such as extended series to fix perceived "unfairnesses". I like the idea of double elimination as a whole though, but I have to concede that the finals of double elim tournaments are generally unsatisfying.
I think something like double elim bracket to 16 players, which are then placed in a single elim bracket, would be better. People from the winners bracket get byes in the new single elim bracket. This is sort of like what MLG does with a championship bracket but less bullshit.
Overall though I think pool play into a single elim bracket is better.
On August 15 2011 23:06 MisterTea wrote: the guy in the winners bracket has already beaten the previous guy 2-1 or 2-0 and deservers the upper hand, just like the guy in the losers bracket got an extra life and fought all the way to the finals , in the end the better player will win and there's nothing wrong with double elim
At Anaheim, MMA never lost a game in the brackets prior to the grand final, he lost one pool game (not to MVP) which sent him into the 'Championship' bracket in the second place slot. MVP could have lost a game to anyone other than Ganzi and would have still had a two match advantage over MMA by virtue of his pool.
On August 16 2011 00:40 ProxyKnoxy wrote: I don't agree at all that the winner of the upper bracket should get an advantage. I don't know why but I just plain disagree with it.
ALL finals should be a BO7 in my opinion, although that would probably never happen, the MLG finals were a let down as it was so short
I can understand why you would believe the system is unfair, but thats where there may be a misunderstanding.
The upper bracket player does not have an advantage.
He doesn't? :o Surely only having to win one Bo3 compared to the two of the other is an advantage over the other?
Poll results are disgusting. The people who voted winner's bracket has only a one game advantage are penalizing the winner to make an imaginary "better" finals. It's like throwing a greater tax % on the really rich people (why? They're so rich they have the advantage over everyone else durrrr). That's not how double elimination works, people! Your life in a tournament is measured by whole BoX series you have won or lost. You don't change the rules right at the last minute for the finals.
If you want grand finals to be a single Bo7 or 9 with both players starting at 0, guess what? That's what's called a single elimination tournament. But you should realize that there's a far greater chance of getting one-sided finals that way (see GSL). I will vomit if you praise the NASL final tournament format because it's the exact same thing as GSL, only that NASL got extremely lucky that two good players really did make it to the grand finals.
You play 2xBo(5,7,9,w/e) with the player from the upper bracket only needing to win 1 of the 2. It is the only truly fair way in line with normal double elimination rule sets. Yeah, its anticlimactic. Thats the reason double elimination shouldnt be used.
The guy coming from the loser bracket has used up 1 bo3 to get to the final. It's only fair that the guy from the winner bracket get's the same treatment.
Stop looking at the finals as a singular event. Look at the finals as the end to the entire event as a whole.
The person coming from the loser's bracket is getting his second chance but the uphill battle isn't over yet. And the person coming from the winner's bracket is one win away from the all-kill.
Why? Well, personally, I don't find much entertainment in a BO>5 series when one player is just dominating his opponent (or her, but we haven't had many of those). It seems like a lot of finals are really good, but it feels like one player is gonna win the whole thing pretty well from the second game. The first, they're going back and forth and one player sort of wins, or its total domination, whichever the first game is, I oftentimes see the second game as the opposite, and either way, it feels easy for one of the players (who by now probably has 2 wins) is going to win. Just my $0.02.
TLDR, the longer the BOX series, the less entertainment value there is, to me, and in my opinion.
Double elim tournaments should always be a best of whatever, with the losers bracket winner being able to reset the bracket and have another best of whatever, anything less is ridiculous as it devalues the wins of the winner bracket winner in comparison to the wins of the loser bracket winner.
If they're anticlimactic (which I personally disagree with, when someone comes back and wins from the losers bracket it's a hell of a lot more hyper), then use a single elimination format with more games in each series, don't do a terrible bastardised system that arbitrarily decides the value of one win versus as another. Either system can allow the same amount of consistant results by the top players, systems like MLG's championship bracket, extended series and so on are absurd complications that have zero mathematical effect on the probability of the better players sticking around.
If keeping mediocre personalities around is the issue then use an invitational system, I just don't get where anyone got the idea that tournament formats were an issue that needed jazzing up with shitty gimmicks. The sport/game in question is probably pretty bad if the only way to make it a viable spectator sport/game is to essentially rig the brackets in favour of a randomly selected few.
i also disagree with double elimination being anticlimactic. you can't say double elimination is anticlimactic based on sc2 tournaments because there has been no sc2 tournaments that actually used double elimination.
in other video games that use double elimination, there have been a ton of tournaments where a person has been sent to losers, and clawed his way back into the grand finals, beating the person from winner's finals in 2 sets. nothing is more exciting and hype than that.
On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote: I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
On August 16 2011 02:31 MrSexington wrote: Stop looking at the finals as a singular event. Look at the finals as the end to the entire event as a whole.
The person coming from the loser's bracket is getting his second chance but the uphill battle isn't over yet. And the person coming from the winner's bracket is one win away from the all-kill.
(It's fine the way it is.)
basically this
we need to look more at every single tournament format that is in use in sc2 being broken to some extent
To be honest I don't like the double-elimination tournament format. I understand the whole "losers bracket'' thing can be more fair to the players and all but... It does not appear to be compatible with the highly competitive aspect of sc2.
I think it's fine as it is. The one from the winners bracket should be able to lose a bo3 and then play another bo3 because everyone gets a second chance. It shouldn't be the mlg system though, the series should start 0-0.
On August 16 2011 02:43 leakingpear wrote: Double elim tournaments should always be a best of whatever, with the losers bracket winner being able to reset the bracket and have another best of whatever, anything less is ridiculous as it devalues the wins of the winner bracket winner in comparison to the wins of the loser bracket winner
It doesn't devalue anything actually. By winning the upper bracket, you don't have to go through the issue of playing more matches and potentially being defeated from the tournament. That is more than enough incentive to win.
If that format was in place, I'd be interested to meet the person or team that would say, "I/we should lose so we can increase our potential to lose, just so I/we have to win one BoX in the grand finals, rather than win straight up."
On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote: I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
Absolutely agree.
Absolutely disagree. Where do you draw the line of "advantage"? What happens if the winner's bracket matches were 2 hours long and the player was burned out? How can you possibly quantify that "having more breaks" equates to a Bo3 win. This is absolutely not fair at all on the player in the winner's bracket. Under your rules, deliberately losing in the Winner's finals may result in an advantage.
Consider the scenario - Winner's Finals: MVP vs Marineking.
Waiting in Loser's Finals: Combat Ex.
Marineking feels he cannot beat MVP in a straight up game but has prepared 2 cheeses to snipe him. If he uses these cheese builds in the winner's finals, his plan will be revealed and in the rematch in the grand finals, he will be rolled over. However, if he saves it for the grand finals, he may be able to sneak in a win because he only has to win 1 Bo3 to be crowned champion, even if he is rolled over in winner's finals. Therefore, he has absolutely no reason to win in Winner's finals, assuming he is confident in thrashing Combat Ex, because wasting energy in a long TvT is not something he wants to do, considering he knows he won't win it anyway.
It goes against all principles of sport to introduce unfair arbitrary rules to make things more hype. This isn't Mario Kart, this is a large sum of money people are playing for. The Winner of the winner's bracket is the only player that hasn't lost. The champion of the loser bracket is the champion of those who have lost once. The champion of the tournament is the person that has only lost once or not at all.
If you use double elimination (as in having a lower bracket at all) removing the winners bracket winner advantage is just straight up giving him a disadvantage.
The format essentially means you have two "lives", one in the upper bracket and one in the lower one. If you finish the winners bracket without losing (2 lives) the person who is still standing after the lower bracket has run it's course (1 life) gets a chance to "dethrone" the former.
Some tourneys end up having the finals be a bit different as in 2 games out of a bo7 or 1 in a bo5.
If you prefer more intense finals, and someone having an easier time at that point doesn't fit the bill, you pretty much have to go with a single elimination bracket. Removing the undefeated players advantage and or negating it partially essentially just gives that player the disadvantage (overall).
A player putting someone into the losers bracket handily and then having him come back and narrowly lose out in a more "even ground" finals would be very controversial I'd imagine as it should be.
All in all treating the finals of a double elim tournament as a different event would be pretty unfair.
Instead the lb winner (and supporters of said player) should look at the bright side. If it were single elim he'd have no chance, instead of some (or even good if it was just bad luck), at coming out on top.
On August 16 2011 02:43 leakingpear wrote: Double elim tournaments should always be a best of whatever, with the losers bracket winner being able to reset the bracket and have another best of whatever, anything less is ridiculous as it devalues the wins of the winner bracket winner in comparison to the wins of the loser bracket winner
It doesn't devalue anything actually. By winning the upper bracket, you don't have to go through the issue of playing more matches and potentially being defeated from the tournament. That is more than enough incentive to win.
If that format was in place, I'd be interested to meet the person or team that would say, "I/we should lose so we can increase our potential to lose, just so I/we have to win one BoX in the grand finals, rather than win straight up."
What are you talking about? You're saying there are players that would rather drop to loser's bracket so they have to win 2 BoX in the finals instead of 1?
On August 16 2011 00:05 Chill wrote: The people voting "Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game" are bending the rules of double elim to try to create excitement at the cost of fairness. I can't back that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I prefer single elimination tournaments past Ro16 anyways.
I voted the BO7 up by one game because it's more exciting (like you said) because it was the best option in the poll for me. The winner's bracket player has to play less games to reach the finals and has a 1-0 head start. Still a fairly huge advantage. Personally, I think it should be up 1-0 in BO5 (not BO7).
On August 16 2011 03:11 ak1knight wrote: What are you talking about? You're saying there are players that would rather drop to loser's bracket so they have to win 2 BoX in the finals instead of 1?
No. The argument that person was making is that the winner of the winner's bracket should be able to force another BoX if they should lose to the lower bracket winner; very much like some sports/other eSports tournaments have already used.
For example, double-elimination CS tournament, lower bracket winner winning Bo3 in Grand Final would force another Bo3 in typical tournaments.
I'm an advocate that going through the loser's bracket and diminishing your probability of winning the tournament by playing (depending on the size of the tournament, way) more matches is punishment enough and that a singular BoX Grand Final is sufficient.
By his argument, if that type of system was in place, I countered saying that I'd like to see a player or team that would rather lose and work through the lower bracket, simply because they don't have to win twice in the Grand Final. I think it's silly because the upper winner still has an advantage and always will.
On August 16 2011 03:22 andytb wrote: Dual-Bo3 produces anticlimactic finals. I'm not too bothered about if there is an advantage given, so long as a straight up duel is adopted
I'm not saying the system isn't fair, the guy from the winners bracket has so far been the best player, and he deserves a headstart, but I do think the head start he gets in these tournaments is over the top. What I would suggest is the big tournaments having a normal best of 7 for finals, where the guy from the winners bracket leads 1-0 when entering game 1.
You're not saying it isn't fair, but it's over the top? Isn't that the same thing? And it's not over the top at all, it's perfectly fair. Double elimination means that you have to lose 2 best of X to be out of the tournament, the one from the winners bracket haven't lost a best of X yet so he will have to lose two to be out.
Now I'm not saying that your criticism of the format isn't valid, it's just that it's false to say that it not fair (as in that the advantage for the player from the winners bracket is over the top). A valid criticism is instead the fact that it can turn out not to be as entertaining because the winner bracket finalist might take a quick win.
Either way I think that fairness in who wins is extremely important in a sport to keep it's validness, and thus I like the current double elimination system.
(I for example think it would be very weird if in a tournament player A wins over player B in the winners bracket final with 3-0 and then in the real final player B beats player A with 3-0 and thus it's over, when they are really equal.)
On August 16 2011 03:11 ak1knight wrote: What are you talking about? You're saying there are players that would rather drop to loser's bracket so they have to win 2 BoX in the finals instead of 1?
No. The argument that person was making is that the winner of the winner's bracket should be able to force another BoX if they should lose to the lower bracket winner; very much like some sports/other eSports tournaments have already used.
For example, double-elimination CS tournament, lower bracket winner winning Bo3 in Grand Final would force another Bo3 in typical tournaments.
I'm an advocate that going through the loser's bracket and diminishing your probability of winning the tournament by playing (depending on the size of the tournament, way) more matches is punishment enough and that a singular BoX Grand Final is sufficient.
By his argument, if that type of system was in place, I countered saying that I'd like to see a player or team that would rather lose and work through the lower bracket, simply because they don't have to win twice in the Grand Final. I think it's silly because the upper winner still has an advantage and always will.
Why does the loser deserve equal footing? What if a tournament had Player A knock Player B down to the losers bracket, neither player loses any more games and they meet again in the final where Player B wins. Why should Player B get the money and glory? Both players have 1 loss and are 1-1 against each other, why does the first series not count?
Also, as a previous poster said, it's nearly impossible to quantify how many more games you actually have to play. In MLG, where open bracket players and pool players are put in the loser's bracket as well, there are a lot more games, but at the NA Blizzard invitational you only had to play 1 extra game.
On August 16 2011 03:22 andytb wrote: Dual-Bo3 produces anticlimactic finals. I'm not too bothered about if there is an advantage given, so long as a straight up duel is adopted
So the Select v. Sheth finals at the NA BNet invitational were anticlimactic? White-ra v. Nerchio in the IPL was anticlimactic? Honestly, the 2xBoX format only produces bad finals when there's a gap in player skill, which is not something a single BoX fixes. Also, a "straight-up BoX" gives the winners finalist a disadvantage, because he only gets to lose one match before elimination, whereas the losers finalist gets to lose two.
I don't understand this attitude of "everyone has to lose two series to get eliminated, except for the winners bracket champion who only gets to lose one series." Adding some strange extended series rule doesn't fix that.
all playoff formats should be single elimination formats just like in really sports. all series should be single elimination bo3 up until the semi finals where it becomes a bo5, then bo7 in the finals, where the higher seeded player choosing the first maps in the map pool. Vetoing maps is prohibited and you cannot recycle a map in a series. In the bo3, the higher seeded player chooses the maps for gm1 and 3, in the bo5 gm 1,2 and 5, and the bo7 gm 1,2,5,7.
Lopsided finals make the finals boring and anti-climactic, then at the same time, there is no fair way to handle the losers bracket. The losers bracket is the problem and I enjoy tournaments that use them quite a bit less.
Using MLG as an example, I personally think the Winner's Bracket Finals, Loser's Bracket Finals, and Finals themselves should just be bumped up by two games and become Bo5, or Bo9 if there was an extended series addition to it.
People are actually voting to (partially) dismiss the fact that the guy from the winner's bracket has worked hard and performed better in order to secure the advantage in the finals? Seriously?
Ideally, as Chill said earlier, you'd want to turn it into a single elimination bracket somewhere around the Ro8 or Ro16 or so, to maximize viewer entertainment while not throwing away the integrity of the bracket.
Barring that, there is and should be a double elim finals in a double elim tournament. I feel like what some people are suggesting would be analogous to giving Inca a free game or two in the GSL finals after he was down 3-0 against Nestea just to make it closer, and thereby hopefully more entertaining for the viewers.
On August 16 2011 03:41 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: all playoff formats should be single elimination formats just like in really sports. all series should be single elimination bo3 up until the semi finals where it becomes a bo5, then bo7 in the finals, where the higher seeded player choosing the first maps in the map pool. Vetoing maps is prohibited and you cannot recycle a map in a series. In the bo3, the higher seeded player chooses the maps for gm1 and 3, in the bo5 gm 1,2 and 5, and the bo7 gm 1,2,5,7.
the only reason those sports don't use double elimination is because there isn't enough time, not because it's not a good system.
I would actually prefer single elimination. It's a lot more suspenseful in my opinion. Also, I don't mind Bo3s for everything besides the finals. However, my preferred arrangement would be Bo3s, then Bo5s in the semis, then a Bo7 in the finals. That way, you get more games of the top players and less of the average ones.
It really emphasizes the whole "You only got one shot" feeling. Make or break.
On August 16 2011 03:41 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: all playoff formats should be single elimination formats just like in really sports. all series should be single elimination bo3 up until the semi finals where it becomes a bo5, then bo7 in the finals, where the higher seeded player choosing the first maps in the map pool. Vetoing maps is prohibited and you cannot recycle a map in a series. In the bo3, the higher seeded player chooses the maps for gm1 and 3, in the bo5 gm 1,2 and 5, and the bo7 gm 1,2,5,7.
the only reason those sports don't use double elimination is because there isn't enough time, not because it's not a good system.
Yeah. Realistically double elimination is a very good system - but it does admittedly cause the grand finals to be slightly less climactic. Double elimination is more about the entire tournament as a unit, whereas single elimination could be broken down step by step without losing much.
I guess what I'm trying to say is jumping straight into watching the finals (without watching much or any of the rest of the tournament) works just fine for single elimination, but doing so in double elimination would be like starting to watch a single elimination finals when the series is already 2-0 or something. I would be saying "Oh hey, yeah, you kind of missed some of it already".
The point of this thread is absolutely retarded. Double elimination is good and absolutely fine. Why would somebody that has not lost be penalized? just stop for a moment and let that sink in your head.
If you want to hate on or critique something, then do it based on brackets/seedings or the volatility of sc2 game-play.
I'm not saying the system isn't fair, the guy from the winners bracket has so far been the best player, and he deserves a headstart, but I do think the head start he gets in these tournaments is over the top. What I would suggest is the big tournaments having a normal best of 7 for finals, where the guy from the winners bracket leads 1-0 when entering game 1.
You're not saying it isn't fair, but it's over the top? Isn't that the same thing? And it's not over the top at all, it's perfectly fair. Double elimination means that you have to lose 2 best of X to be out of the tournament, the one from the winners bracket haven't lost a best of X yet so he will have to lose two to be out.
I'm saying I acknowledge the fact that double elimination implies that everyone should be able to lose two series before getting eliminated. BUT, imo, there is some leeway there that could help create a more epic final for the spectators, while still giving the winners bracket player a good advantage.
I think winners and loser brackets shouldn't be seperate for a double elimination tournament. I would like to see some kind of system that randomly matched players up but forced unique opponents as much as possible until we have 2 people left. If you still have not dropped a set by that point you deserve the advantage of being able to lose a set and still compete.
Would make for an intresting finals if somehow both players haven't dropped a set!
i love loser brackets. sure if one steamrolls through the finals are short. But well they would be anyway, so not really a loss if the winner bracket person wins. Also the overall tournament is way cooler and more matches in general. If you are only interested in finals though this is of course nothing for you. But if you actually cheer for a player or 2 thats perfect.
This is just another legitimacy of the tournament vs. what spectators want thread. While not quite as bad as the retards who think online tourneys should be livestreamed, the legitimacy of the tournament should always come first. Another example for "lan" tournaments is having the players play out in front in the stage without soundproof booths. While I can understand that spectators want to see the people who are playing, it is unacceptable that the players are ever able to hear the commentators. If you cannot provide adequate soundproofing, then players should be somewhere they can't hear.
On August 16 2011 03:41 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: all playoff formats should be single elimination formats just like in really sports. all series should be single elimination bo3 up until the semi finals where it becomes a bo5, then bo7 in the finals, where the higher seeded player choosing the first maps in the map pool. Vetoing maps is prohibited and you cannot recycle a map in a series. In the bo3, the higher seeded player chooses the maps for gm1 and 3, in the bo5 gm 1,2 and 5, and the bo7 gm 1,2,5,7.
the only reason those sports don't use double elimination is because there isn't enough time, not because it's not a good system.
I dont mean to be rude but what the heck are you talking about? Time constraints are not the reason sports use a single elimination format. Most people I've persuaded to watch cs/quake/sc events with me who havnt already find the double elmination bracket a completely alien concept. No one in the general public is looking at Wimbledon or the FIFA World Cup going "Shit guys if only we had more fucking time! We're stuck with this damn and blasted single elimination rubbish! I want England to have to beat Brazil in the final twice, or at the very least from a goal down! Oh why must we put up with this wretched wretched single elimination format! Boo Hoo, if only there were more hours in the day then our need for double elmination could be met!"
Have I made my point yet?
Edit for clarity (as if it were needed) : No double elimination final will provide a truly acceptable final in which two competitors battle from a position of equal oppurtinity and power. That is not to say they CANT be exciting, but the chance of an underdog victory or a truly close game is offset by the inherent advantage held by the winner of the winners bracket
I'm not saying the system isn't fair, the guy from the winners bracket has so far been the best player, and he deserves a headstart, but I do think the head start he gets in these tournaments is over the top. What I would suggest is the big tournaments having a normal best of 7 for finals, where the guy from the winners bracket leads 1-0 when entering game 1.
You're not saying it isn't fair, but it's over the top? Isn't that the same thing? And it's not over the top at all, it's perfectly fair. Double elimination means that you have to lose 2 best of X to be out of the tournament, the one from the winners bracket haven't lost a best of X yet so he will have to lose two to be out.
I'm saying I acknowledge the fact that double elimination implies that everyone should be able to lose two series before getting eliminated. BUT, imo, there is some leeway there that could help create a more epic final for the spectators, while still giving the winners bracket player a good advantage.
Sorry, but you'd be artificially changing the rules at the last moment just for a shot at "ooooooh flashier finals oooooo..." It's childish ("just because you haven't lost a set means we have to set you back!"), and it ruins the integrity of the tournament itself. Also, how the hell does it make it better for the spectators? It's up to the PLAYERS themselves to put up a good show. None of this artificial BS nonsense to cheapen the tournament experience.
MLG does something like this only they do it in the opposite spectrum and DOUBLY PUNISH the "loser's bracket" player thanks to the extended series rule. Think about why just about everyone calls this ruleset utter bull!@#$.
Let me give you an example that should clear your mind up: A 3-set tennis match.
Player A takes set 1 over player B 6-4. We're now in the second set, both at 0-0. Player B now has to win a total of 12 games without dropping 6 of them in a single set at any time if he wants to win the whole match. But all of a sudden, the refs decide to change the format to keep the score from set 1 and make the winner of the match first to 12, meaning that player B just has to make up the difference and just take 8 more in total to win. No! Nuh-uh! Everyone knows the original ruleset from the very beginning of tennis, and changing it to this way seriously cheapens the match, and I would guarantee you it would damage the spectator value too.
On August 16 2011 06:15 BigLighthouse wrote: Edit for clarity (as if it were needed) : No double elimination final will provide a truly acceptable final in which two competitors battle from a position of equal oppurtinity and power. That is not to say they CANT be exciting, but the chance of an underdog victory or a truly close game is offset by the inherent advantage held by the winner of the winners bracket
Fine, then we should all make SC2 tournaments single elimination and get GSL-quality finals! I'm sure we all loved watching the underdog InCa give Nestea a run for his money, right?
It's only fair to give the winners' bracket player the "extra life" that the loser's bracket winner has.
As for the hype, upsets may not happen all the time, but they can and do, and it's really impressive when they do. I've seen Evo tourney finals (for side-tourneys as well as the main ones) go to the last round of the second match quite a few times. Bringing it back from the big disadvantage is a big part of the hype.
On August 16 2011 06:15 BigLighthouse wrote: Edit for clarity (as if it were needed) : No double elimination final will provide a truly acceptable final in which two competitors battle from a position of equal oppurtinity and power. That is not to say they CANT be exciting, but the chance of an underdog victory or a truly close game is offset by the inherent advantage held by the winner of the winners bracket
Fine, then we should all make SC2 tournaments single elimination and get GSL-quality finals! I'm sure we all loved watching the underdog InCa give Nestea a run for his money, right?
Do you really think that putting inca at a 1 BO7 defecit would have made it any closer?
On August 16 2011 06:15 BigLighthouse wrote: Edit for clarity (as if it were needed) : No double elimination final will provide a truly acceptable final in which two competitors battle from a position of equal oppurtinity and power. That is not to say they CANT be exciting, but the chance of an underdog victory or a truly close game is offset by the inherent advantage held by the winner of the winners bracket
Fine, then we should all make SC2 tournaments single elimination and get GSL-quality finals! I'm sure we all loved watching the underdog InCa give Nestea a run for his money, right?
Do you really think that putting inca at a 1 BO7 defecit would have made it any closer?
For god's sakes, man. I am NOT advocating the Bo7 method with a 1 game advantage to winner's. Can you read sarcasm?
On August 16 2011 06:15 BigLighthouse wrote: Edit for clarity (as if it were needed) : No double elimination final will provide a truly acceptable final in which two competitors battle from a position of equal oppurtinity and power. That is not to say they CANT be exciting, but the chance of an underdog victory or a truly close game is offset by the inherent advantage held by the winner of the winners bracket
Fine, then we should all make SC2 tournaments single elimination and get GSL-quality finals! I'm sure we all loved watching the underdog InCa give Nestea a run for his money, right?
Do you really think that putting inca at a 1 BO7 defecit would have made it any closer?
No, but it would be possible to see someone like NaDa, sC, Losira, or TOP make it through the lower bracket and challenge him for the finals instead of having a completely lackluster finals.
On August 16 2011 06:15 BigLighthouse wrote: Edit for clarity (as if it were needed) : No double elimination final will provide a truly acceptable final in which two competitors battle from a position of equal oppurtinity and power. That is not to say they CANT be exciting, but the chance of an underdog victory or a truly close game is offset by the inherent advantage held by the winner of the winners bracket
Fine, then we should all make SC2 tournaments single elimination and get GSL-quality finals! I'm sure we all loved watching the underdog InCa give Nestea a run for his money, right?
Do you really think that putting inca at a 1 BO7 defecit would have made it any closer?
For god's sakes, man. I am NOT advocating the Bo7 method with a 1 game advantage to winner's. Can you read sarcasm?
I assumed the sarcasm was discrediting single elimination formats in favour of double elimination. Can you blame me for reaching my conclusion?
Either you have double elimination or you don't. To me it makes zero sense to change the format just because it's the final. Also, single elimination doesn't have to be much more volatile than double if you have large enough boX for each round.
Current system is fair. But I would also prefer a Bo7 with 1up for the player out of the winners bracket.
The player from the winners bracket already has the advantage that he had to play less games and he had more time to prepare for the finals. While the loser had to play a very exhausting Loser Bracket Final.
On August 16 2011 06:41 Koshi wrote: Current system is fair. But I would also prefer a Bo7 with 1up for the player out of the winners bracket.
The player from the winners bracket already has the advantage that he had to play less games and he had more time to prepare for the finals. While the loser had to play a very exhausting Loser Bracket Final.
I would consider playing less games just as much as a disadvantage as it is an advantage. You'll get cold if you stop playing.
On August 16 2011 02:43 leakingpear wrote: Double elim tournaments should always be a best of whatever, with the losers bracket winner being able to reset the bracket and have another best of whatever, anything less is ridiculous as it devalues the wins of the winner bracket winner in comparison to the wins of the loser bracket winner
It doesn't devalue anything actually. By winning the upper bracket, you don't have to go through the issue of playing more matches and potentially being defeated from the tournament. That is more than enough incentive to win.
If that format was in place, I'd be interested to meet the person or team that would say, "I/we should lose so we can increase our potential to lose, just so I/we have to win one BoX in the grand finals, rather than win straight up."
That's a ridiculous way to look at it, they both end up having to win the same amount of series, bar having to reset the bracket in the final. It's not about incentive to win, it's about fair tournament structure, it's not like there's loads of players planning to lose.
If what format was in place? Standard double elimination? The kind of double elimination tournament format used by thousands of different individual and team sports and games? I have no idea where you get this bollocks about tournament structures being there to provide incentive to do anything, they're there to ensure that the tournament is fair and ideally are there to give the best players the best chance.
What these non-standard structures do is make it so it's a completely arbitrary group that gets the best chance, either based on luck, decreasingly irrelevant previous results or some other nonsense like geographic location. I honestly have no idea where people got the idea that tournament structure was something that needed messing about with.
Both options (standard single or double elim) have complete flexibility without making it dumb as crap. Seeding systems allow recognised good players to not have to face each other until later in the tournament while not making it prohibitively hard for unseeded players to do well based on their performance.
This stuff is remarkably uncomplicated yet everyone seems to want to make it so, the worst offenders being MLG.
Really? Nearly half of you want this made up 'up-one-game' rule? I'm actually shocked.
Everyone seems to hate the extended series rule, and the reason given is its 'unfair', as both players are now at the same part of the bracket who cares what happened before. But then why make this obviously unfair rule for the finals? This would actually harm spectator enjoyment for me at least, if the losers bracket person ended up winning, it wouldn't be considered legit.
Sorry, but you'd be artificially changing the rules at the last moment just for a shot at "ooooooh flashier finals oooooo..." It's childish ("just because you haven't lost a set means we have to set you back!"), and it ruins the integrity of the tournament itself. Also, how the hell does it make it better for the spectators? It's up to the PLAYERS themselves to put up a good show. None of this artificial BS nonsense to cheapen the tournament experience.
First of all, the "oooooh flashier finall ooooo" should be a goal for any tournament. Who said they would be artificially changing the rules at the last moment?
Second of all, the rule I suggested wouldn't really set the winners bracket player back by much. The player from the losers bracket would still have to win 4 out of 6 games to win. The only thing it changes is that you are guaranteed more games, instead of a two game sweep like we usually see.
Third of all, while the players are responsible for putting up a good show, when pitting the best players of the tournament against each other for all the glory, I find a best of 7 more appropriate. If you find that change would ruin the intergrity of say MLG, then I don't know who the childish one here is. Note that I can understand people who want the principle of double elimination to be just that throughout the tourney, I just think another way is better.
On August 16 2011 06:19 Lunchador wrote: Let me give you an example that should clear your mind up: A 3-set tennis match.
Player A takes set 1 over player B 6-4. We're now in the second set, both at 0-0. Player B now has to win a total of 12 games without dropping 6 of them in a single set at any time if he wants to win the whole match. But all of a sudden, the refs decide to change the format to keep the score from set 1 and make the winner of the match first to 12, meaning that player B just has to make up the difference and just take 8 more in total to win. No! Nuh-uh! Everyone knows the original ruleset from the very beginning of tennis, and changing it to this way seriously cheapens the match, and I would guarantee you it would damage the spectator value too.
Edited away a part that didnt make sense.
The only thing I'm advocating is more games, If Wimbledon implemented double elimination and put forth my suggestion, I do not believe Nadal would protest if he started the finals one set over Federer. It would not cause turmoil, it would not be a big deal. So while your example seems proper, it collapses in that tennis match of yours being played as one match. It obviously have to happen over two games to make sense. When winners meet in the winners finals, they are fighting for a spot in the finals, they are not fighting elimination.
The bullshit about "suddenly the refs decide" is just that, bullshit. If MLG were gonna change the format they obviously would have waited until the next season before changing it. Am I saying I believe they will change it or that I demand them to change it? No, I'm just using a forum the way it should be used, by putting my thoughts out there.
i am so amazed that so many of you don't understand the simple concept of a standard double elimination.
also, for those of you saying double elimination is anticlimactic, point me to a tournament where that was the case (can't reference sc2 since there are none), and tell me why single elimination would have made it more hype.
in return, i'll show you more tournaments where there was double elimination, and where there was more hype.
On August 16 2011 06:44 tehV wrote: Really? Nearly half of you want this made up 'up-one-game' rule? I'm actually shocked.
Everyone seems to hate the extended series rule, and the reason given is its 'unfair', as both players are now at the same part of the bracket who cares what happened before. But then why make this obviously unfair rule for the finals? This would actually harm spectator enjoyment for me at least, if the losers bracket person ended up winning, it wouldn't be considered legit.
--What is wrong with you people? --
As I said in the previous post, the player coming from the losers bracket would still have to win 4 out of 6 games in order to beat the guy from winners. If he does so, then I think most would agree he deserves the win.
On August 16 2011 00:05 Chill wrote: The people voting "Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game" are bending the rules of double elim to try to create excitement at the cost of fairness. I can't back that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I prefer single elimination tournaments past Ro16 anyways.
How is that? I think it is too great of an advantage for the guy from the winners bracket if its 2 Bo3's. There needs to be some sort of advantage for the winners bracket player, but it needs to be small, because going through the losers bracket playing more games to get to the finals is a punishment in of itself. As a nice side effect, it most likely creates longer finals. The possibility of big finals ending with 2 really short games is just really uncool. I think 2 Bo5's would be better, though this could end up being too long overall.
How is what? He thoroughly explained his opinion. One which I don't entirely agree with but I fail to see your point.You suggest that making it 2 bo5 would level the playing field. How? Overall, it is the exact same concept. It wouldn't matter if it was 2 bo47 because it boils down to one player having to win 1 set while the other has to win 2. It would put the player from the losers bracket in a position to not just win both sets but do it over a much larger series, after playing from the pigtail.
You seem to think because Starcraft 2 is a spectator sport that the spectators interest should be held in higher regard than the players. It doesn't matter if the finals don't mount up to the expectations of the crowd, it matters that the best player wins.
To ensure the best player wins you use a format that doesn't allow losers to end up in the finals with an opportunity they don't deserve. If you want the best player at that given time to win, then you remove this multiple elimination non sense.
Look at the MSL, OSL, or the GSL for example. You have repeat winners in all of them. Why? Because removing double elimination, eliminates opportunity for travesty.
Get rid of the grand finals. The winner of the winners bracket is first place. This makes sense since he lost 0 series the whole tournament. You could make this a bo5/bo7. Then have the 2nd/3rd places be determined by the losers bracket final.
If you do it that way no one who ever enters the losers bracket can get first, but they can get any other position.
On August 16 2011 06:44 tehV wrote: Really? Nearly half of you want this made up 'up-one-game' rule? I'm actually shocked.
Everyone seems to hate the extended series rule, and the reason given is its 'unfair', as both players are now at the same part of the bracket who cares what happened before. But then why make this obviously unfair rule for the finals? This would actually harm spectator enjoyment for me at least, if the losers bracket person ended up winning, it wouldn't be considered legit.
--What is wrong with you people? --
Huh. Extended series also affects every other part of the tournament not just the finals. In the finals the players haven't really made it to "the same part of the bracket" since 1 is still technically in the winner's bracket and the other is in loser's. The 1 game rule for the finals makes perfect sense to me. Even the 2 bo3's makes more sense than extended series.
Double elim guarantees that the top 2 players are indeed the top 2 players in the tournament. Single elim gives us the gsl finals, where only the winner can be seen as 100% deserving to have even been in the finals.
If you have a field of 64 players, but the 2 best players play each other in the first round, then the 2nd best player at the tournament who should get the 2nd place prize now gets 64th.
Double elim is significantly better for the players, and tends to make for better matches as well.
On August 16 2011 07:45 Mastermind wrote: This is what they should do.
Get rid of the grand finals. The winner of the winners bracket is first place. This makes sense since he lost 0 series the whole tournament. You could make this a bo5/bo7. Then have the 2nd/3rd places be determined by the losers bracket final.
If you do it that way no one who ever enters the losers bracket can get first, but they can get any other position.
I've personally been to several tournaments where the player coming from the loser's bracket is able to adjust and win both sets of grand finals.
As a side note, the format has no bearing on how hype the finals are, as best evidenced by the gsl. Not every finals will be GGPlay vs Iris, sometimes the best matches happen in the ro8 or ro4, it can't be helped.
everyone who says double elimination is more boring, let's take a look at gsl.
players that placed second in the gsl such as rain, inca, losira (<3) made the gsl finals less interesting, and this is because of single elimination. if it was double elimination, there would have been a higher chance of someone like mc, nada, bomber, nestea(when he got eliminated by rain) to play in the grand finals. how is that not MORE exciting?
let's say during the gsl with nestea vs inca, bomber worked his way to grand finals from losers bracket. yes he'd have to win 2 best of 5s, but at least we get to see ONE best of 5 MINIMUM. if bomber beats nestea in the first bo5, then that's more hype than even a single elimination game... double elimination makes it that much more likely that the grand finals will have the better players, making for more exciting games.
once again, i challenge someone to find a video game tournament where double elimination made finals less boring, and i'll challenge myself to find ones that made it even more exciting.
I've always felt that the player in the winner's bracket ALREADY has an advantage because he's had to play fewer games. The more games you play, the more chance you'll get unlucky or slip up and that you'll get knocked out. I see absolutely no reason why you should get an advantage over somebody in the finals just because you're arriving there from a different bracket. Plus, it's more fun to the spectators if there's no advantage
On August 16 2011 07:55 Mezmy wrote: Every player in the tournament gets a second chance after they lose. So why should the finalist of the upper bracket not get the same privilege?
This is essentially the argument that everyone who favors the staus quo in double elimination uses. And the answer is very simple: It makes for lousy entertainment.
In most sports, a tournament builds up to the finals, and that is the most important and most exciting match. When you use double elimination the final is basically a foregone conclusion and becomes far less exciting than the buildup to it. There is a good reason why no professional sports league uses double elimination.
I don't think the winner's bracket finalist being up 1-0 is a good compromise either. Its a "gamey" solution that doesn't actually tackle the crux of the problem. Double elimination should never be used all the way up the final. As someone mentioned on page 1, beach volleyball uses double elim to narrow down the field to 4, and then goes semi-final and final, and that really needs to become the general practice. You can use it to get down to 4, 8, or 16 and the winners bracket reward is the higher seeds, and less fatigue from less games played.
If the brackets leading up to the finals are Bo3, then I see no reason that the final couldn't just be played as a Bo7, without any head-start given to player from the Winner's bracket. But if an advantage must be given, then I'd say a Bo9 with a game up on the player from the LB is good.
yeah the winner bracket finalist has the advantage cos he hasn't lost a game. common sense. and no i'm not talking about entertainment value but if double elim is used it would be silly to not give advantage to the one that has gone undefeated. in a single elim he would have already won the tournament.
On August 16 2011 07:55 Kurr wrote: I love Double elimination tournaments, except the finals. It definitely makes them less interesting.
On the other hand, it would be unfair NOT to give such an advantage to the upper bracket winner, since he is the only one not to have lost.
Hence, I voted keep it how it is. Any other feel, I feel, is a slap in the face for the upper bracket winner.
really, what are some tournaments (whichever video game you watched) that you've seen recently that produced less interesting finals?
not this mlg double elimination bullshit, but a real double elimination?
Blizzcon EU invite with one Bo3 as final was quite anticlimatic. US invite was quite fortunate that it went to second Bo3. That no fault of the system but of the tourney imo. Finals should be Bo5 (like IPL2 White-Ra Nerchio) But his point stands, I prefer a Bo7 with 1:0 start like at HSC (if participants agree), you have to remember: the guy from LB play more matches, he´s at a disadvantige from the start imo
Edit: Perhaps I have to add that my "the guy from LB play more matches, he´s at a disadvantige from the start imo" counts if it is a LAN tourney where they play all matches in a short time (MLG). Something like IPL it doesn´t matter imo
Its called double elimination for a reason, because you have to lose twice before you are eliminated. I dont see how people can say that the person in Winners Bracket should not get an advantage. He has not lost a series yet so losing in the finals (even if its a longer series) would be his first lose and hence he would not be eliminated. Being rewarded for winning every series up to the grand finals should be in every tournament in one way or another.
i think its fine the way it is. the winner deserves such an advantage for not losing a single set up to that point. To give such a small advantage isnt too fair.
International esport tournaments have been run this way for YEARS. This is a classic case of people who think esports started 6 months ago (75% of the sc2 scene), coming in and telling people to change how its always been run ("hey guys col is a stupid tag for complexity durr")
I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule.
On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote: I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule.
Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist.
Edit: damn Idra always linking to SC1 Bo7 with winner 1:0 up was played at HomeStoryCup for example. An representative poll from Pros would be interesting
On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote: I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule.
Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist.
Or, we can give both players equal ground in terms of format instead of arbitrarily decided what is too big of an advantage.
Nerchio got to drop a set, White-ra should get to drop a set.
If you want to stop one format, and transition into another, it should happen when the BoX number increases so that one person doesn't get to drop a Bo3, while the other person gets to drop a Bo5, which is the only real issue that could be raised in regards to the quantity within a set. So get to Ro16 or Ro8, and then no more double elimination or something like that.
Trying to splice the formats to make it more exciting for the final is unfair to the player in the winner bracket final. Furthermore, for the people deciding on their own that "Playing less games is an advantage enough", that's an advantage they earned by not losing, it's inherent to the format, just because the earned their way to having to play fewer games, doesn't mean they should be penalized and not given the same ability to drop a set that everyone else in the tournament gets.
If you want double elimination all the way up to the finals, it's absolutely unfair to remove it for the WB finalist, no amount of, "Well, he had to play less" changes that. They don't get to drop a set, their opponent got to drop a set, trying to create a comparison to something else shouldn't be necessary, all of this is inherent to the format.
In short, if you want single elimination, you want single elimination, if you want double elimination till the RoX, that's fine too, but if you want double elimination for everyone except the WB finalist, that is absolutely unfair.
On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote: I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule.
Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist.
Or, we can give both players equal ground in terms of format instead of arbitrarily decided what is too big of an advantage.
Nerchio got to drop a set, White-ra should get to drop a set.
If you want to stop one format, and transition into another, it should happen when the BoX number increases so that one person doesn't get to drop a Bo3, while the other person gets to drop a Bo5, which is the only real issue that could be raised in regards to the quantity within a set. So get to Ro16 or Ro8, and then no more double elimination or something like that.
Trying to splice the formats to make it more exciting for the final is unfair to the player in the winner bracket final. Furthermore, for the people deciding on their own that "Playing less games is an advantage enough", that's an advantage they earned by not losing, it's inherent to the format, just because the earned their way to having to play fewer games, doesn't mean they should be penalized and not given the same ability to drop a set that everyone else in the tournament gets.
If you want double elimination all the way up to the finals, it's absolutely unfair to remove it for the WB finalist, no amount of, "Well, he had to play less" changes that. They don't get to drop a set, their opponent got to drop a set, trying to create a comparison to something else shouldn't be necessary, all of this is inherent to the format.
In short, if you want single elimination, you want single elimination, if you want double elimination till the RoX, that's fine too, but if you want double elimination for everyone except the WB finalist, that is absolutely unfair.
Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra.
I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules.
At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series.
Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination)
On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote: I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule.
Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist.
Or, we can give both players equal ground in terms of format instead of arbitrarily decided what is too big of an advantage.
Nerchio got to drop a set, White-ra should get to drop a set.
If you want to stop one format, and transition into another, it should happen when the BoX number increases so that one person doesn't get to drop a Bo3, while the other person gets to drop a Bo5, which is the only real issue that could be raised in regards to the quantity within a set. So get to Ro16 or Ro8, and then no more double elimination or something like that.
Trying to splice the formats to make it more exciting for the final is unfair to the player in the winner bracket final. Furthermore, for the people deciding on their own that "Playing less games is an advantage enough", that's an advantage they earned by not losing, it's inherent to the format, just because the earned their way to having to play fewer games, doesn't mean they should be penalized and not given the same ability to drop a set that everyone else in the tournament gets.
If you want double elimination all the way up to the finals, it's absolutely unfair to remove it for the WB finalist, no amount of, "Well, he had to play less" changes that. They don't get to drop a set, their opponent got to drop a set, trying to create a comparison to something else shouldn't be necessary, all of this is inherent to the format.
In short, if you want single elimination, you want single elimination, if you want double elimination till the RoX, that's fine too, but if you want double elimination for everyone except the WB finalist, that is absolutely unfair.
Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra.
I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules.
At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series.
Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination)
what do you mean where is the cut?
standard double elimination has been used competitively for a LONG time, especially in video games. having to lose 2 series to get eliminated is the most basic and only rule you need to know in double elimination.
On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote: I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule.
Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist.
Or, we can give both players equal ground in terms of format instead of arbitrarily decided what is too big of an advantage.
Nerchio got to drop a set, White-ra should get to drop a set.
If you want to stop one format, and transition into another, it should happen when the BoX number increases so that one person doesn't get to drop a Bo3, while the other person gets to drop a Bo5, which is the only real issue that could be raised in regards to the quantity within a set. So get to Ro16 or Ro8, and then no more double elimination or something like that.
Trying to splice the formats to make it more exciting for the final is unfair to the player in the winner bracket final. Furthermore, for the people deciding on their own that "Playing less games is an advantage enough", that's an advantage they earned by not losing, it's inherent to the format, just because the earned their way to having to play fewer games, doesn't mean they should be penalized and not given the same ability to drop a set that everyone else in the tournament gets.
If you want double elimination all the way up to the finals, it's absolutely unfair to remove it for the WB finalist, no amount of, "Well, he had to play less" changes that. They don't get to drop a set, their opponent got to drop a set, trying to create a comparison to something else shouldn't be necessary, all of this is inherent to the format.
In short, if you want single elimination, you want single elimination, if you want double elimination till the RoX, that's fine too, but if you want double elimination for everyone except the WB finalist, that is absolutely unfair.
Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra.
I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules.
At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series.
Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination)
For the HomeStory cup, to me it was essentially the atmosphere, so I didn't really care, I thought the tournament was great. But I'll go ahead and say it, the format used towards the end was unfair to the WB finalist.
For the IPL, White-ra had to play fewer games because he didn't lose... Nerchio lost, got a second chance, had to play more games sure, but comes back to the finals and now instead of White-ra getting the same right to a second chance, similar to Nerchio, he gets 1 game up? That is clearly unfair, sure he had to play less people, but that's because he never lost, you can't try to create a comparison like that, you are effectively taking a decision away from him for not losing in addition to a privilege that everyone else in the tournament received.
So once again, at the end of the day... If you want to use the double elimination format, then in my opinion, you should use the double elimination format. If you want to use the single elimination format, you should use the single elimination format, if you want to use one up till a certain round and then have everyone switch to single elimination(sort of like a mini-qualifier), that's fine too. But using one format until the end, and then arbitrarily thinking up what advantage a player should be given to keep in entertaining is not in the spirit of competition.
There should be no player names and numbers necessary, one player gets to drop a set, the other player gets to drop a set. It's pretty straight forward. If one player had to play more games, it's because he lost, it's his fault, just like it's the WB Finalist's own performance that earned him that spot, you shouldn't penalize someone for winning every match they played.
On August 16 2011 08:11 akalarry wrote: everyone who says double elimination is more boring, let's take a look at gsl.
players that placed second in the gsl such as rain, inca, losira (<3) made the gsl finals less interesting, and this is because of single elimination. if it was double elimination, there would have been a higher chance of someone like mc, nada, bomber, nestea(when he got eliminated by rain) to play in the grand finals. how is that not MORE exciting?
let's say during the gsl with nestea vs inca, bomber worked his way to grand finals from losers bracket. yes he'd have to win 2 best of 5s, but at least we get to see ONE best of 5 MINIMUM. if bomber beats nestea in the first bo5, then that's more hype than even a single elimination game... double elimination makes it that much more likely that the grand finals will have the better players, making for more exciting games.
once again, i challenge someone to find a video game tournament where double elimination made finals less boring, and i'll challenge myself to find ones that made it even more exciting.
GSL finals were boring because of the luck of the draw. TSL3 had single elimination and the final was extremely exciting. The same with NASL and the most recent Dreamhack.
In my opinion, if you lose a bo5 to a "weaker" player (which happens from the ro8 onwards), you don't deserve to be in the tournament.
Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra.
I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules.
At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series.
Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination)
what do you mean where is the cut?
standard double elimination has been used competitively for a LONG time, especially in video games. having to lose 2 series to get eliminated is the most basic and only rule you need to know in double elimination.
Sorry, you didn´t catch the point of me discussing with Mondiford (well, I hope I didn´t get it wrong), he talked about switching the format when changing from Bo3 to Bo5.
So my point was that there are no general rules. Nerchio lost a Bo3 in the beginning an fought through 4 Bo5 befor facing White-Ra. White-Ra fought 2 Bo5 before facing Nerchio, this is a difference
I know what double elimination is, and I know it is more fair. The point for me is, "where is the cut" haha, expecting your answer, probably we just don´t get each other
On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote: I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule.
Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist.
Or, we can give both players equal ground in terms of format instead of arbitrarily decided what is too big of an advantage.
Nerchio got to drop a set, White-ra should get to drop a set.
If you want to stop one format, and transition into another, it should happen when the BoX number increases so that one person doesn't get to drop a Bo3, while the other person gets to drop a Bo5, which is the only real issue that could be raised in regards to the quantity within a set. So get to Ro16 or Ro8, and then no more double elimination or something like that.
Trying to splice the formats to make it more exciting for the final is unfair to the player in the winner bracket final. Furthermore, for the people deciding on their own that "Playing less games is an advantage enough", that's an advantage they earned by not losing, it's inherent to the format, just because the earned their way to having to play fewer games, doesn't mean they should be penalized and not given the same ability to drop a set that everyone else in the tournament gets.
If you want double elimination all the way up to the finals, it's absolutely unfair to remove it for the WB finalist, no amount of, "Well, he had to play less" changes that. They don't get to drop a set, their opponent got to drop a set, trying to create a comparison to something else shouldn't be necessary, all of this is inherent to the format.
In short, if you want single elimination, you want single elimination, if you want double elimination till the RoX, that's fine too, but if you want double elimination for everyone except the WB finalist, that is absolutely unfair.
Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra.
I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules.
At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series.
Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination)
For the HomeStory cup, to me it was essentially the atmosphere, so I didn't really care, I thought the tournament was great. But I'll go ahead and say it, the format used towards the end was unfair to the WB finalist.
For the IPL, White-ra had to play fewer games because he didn't lose... Nerchio lost, got a second chance, had to play more games sure, but comes back to the finals and now instead of White-ra getting the same right to a second chance, similar to Nerchio, he gets 1 game up? That is clearly unfair, sure he had to play less people, but that's because he never lost, you can't try to create a comparison like that, you are effectively taking a decision away from him for not losing in addition to a privilege that everyone else in the tournament received.
So once again, at the end of the day... If you want to use the double elimination format, then in my opinion, you should use the double elimination format. If you want to use the single elimination format, you should use the single elimination format, if you want to use one up till a certain round and then have everyone switch to single elimination(sort of like a mini-qualifier), that's fine too. But using one format until the end, and then arbitrarily thinking up what advantage a player should be given to keep in entertaining is not in the spirit of competition.
There should be no player names and numbers necessary, one player gets to drop a set, the other player gets to drop a set. It's pretty straight forward. If one player had to play more games, it's because he lost, it's his fault, just like it's the WB Finalist's own performance that earned him that spot, you shouldn't penalize someone for winning every match they played.
I got your point (really) but are you really not bumped down from a final (look at EU Blizzcon qualifiers) where the finals is one Bo3?
One Bo3 is fair as the loser lost 1 Bo3 before. A Bo5 in the finals is not "fair" as the loser lost an Bo3 befor and now have to win 2 Bo5. Ah I think I can´t express what I mean at the moment (wohoo 5:45 in the morning, well I can watch HuK as it seems)
Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra.
I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules.
At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series.
Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination)
what do you mean where is the cut?
standard double elimination has been used competitively for a LONG time, especially in video games. having to lose 2 series to get eliminated is the most basic and only rule you need to know in double elimination.
Sorry, you didn´t catch the point of me discussing with Mondiford (well, I hope I didn´t get it wrong), he talked about switching the format when changing from Bo3 to Bo5.
So my point was that there are no general rules. Nerchio lost a Bo3 in the beginning an fought through 4 Bo5 befor facing White-Ra. White-Ra fought 2 Bo5 before facing Nerchio, this is a difference
I know what double elimination is, and I know it is more fair. The point for me is, "where is the cut" haha, expecting your answer, probably we just don´t get each other
What do you mean where is the cut?
I'm saying very simply, if you want to change the format from double elimination to single elimination, do it when you're moving up from Bo3s to Bo5s in the Ro16 or Ro8 or whenever. It makes no sense to go all the way to the final with one format, and then flip flop and effectively make it so the LB Finalist played it as double elimination and the WB Finalist is playing it now as a single elimination tournament with one free game.
One free game does not compare to the ability to lose a series and keep going, sure you can bring up situations where if someone had gotten a free game, the whole tournament could have been so different but that's not what I'm talking about here, on pure numbers, which is all that matters in terms of fairness, not some situational, "Well X player had to play this guy and Y player didn't".
If one player gets to lose a set, the other player should get to lose a set. That is fairness.
If you want to make this change when reaching a specific round earlier in the tournament, that's fine, but after you get to the Ro8, having been able to lose one set is too much of an advantage to discard. That is the cut, you don't go to the finals and then say, "Yo bro, you don't get the same privilege as everyone else, instead you get a free game".
I agree with most people, upper-bracket advantage (of any sort) is only fair and justified.
Yet it takes away from the spectacle to a stupid degree. If im watching a final and one guy is 2-0 or, or needs to win just 1 bo3 compared to 2 bo3, then often I won't give it my full attention or even watch.
On August 16 2011 12:53 resilve wrote: I agree with most people, upper-bracket advantage (of any sort) is only fair and justified.
Yet it takes away from the spectacle to a stupid degree. If im watching a final and one guy is 2-0 or, or needs to win just 1 bo3 compared to 2 bo3, then often I won't give it my full attention or even watch.
then you're missing out, because i can think of tons of tournaments where the guy coming from losers bracket came back and won the tournament, making it actually more hype and exciting then a single elimination tournament.
I have to agree. The finals of a tournament should be exciting to watch; knowing the results spoils that. Getting a fair match with the winner of the winners bracket is a completely fair prize for winning the losers bracket.
On August 16 2011 12:41 CatNzHat wrote: i think that if you make it to the finals through the losers bracket you shouldn't be at a disadvantage in the grand finals.
So the player going throug the winner's bracket should get a disadvantage?
I guess most exciting system would be GSL in that kind. Starts off with double elim and turns into single elim after group stage.
Any other method would give a disadvantage to the Winners bracket player that no other player had to deal with. This thread is absurd, and the fact that so many people are voting for a b07 starting down one game... That's just ridiculous.
One free game does not compare to the ability to lose a series and keep going, sure you can bring up situations where if someone had gotten a free game, the whole tournament could have been so different but that's not what I'm talking about here, on pure numbers, which is all that matters in terms of fairness, not some situational
Well, that´s the reason I don´t argue normally. 2 guys arguing don´t change their oppinion, so I have to disagree. Having to win 2 Bo5 because you lost one Bo3 in the first round is not "fair" to me. Fighting through 3 more opponent (and 1 more Bo5) isn´t either.
I never said
I want single elimination just in final
I just don´t think that always double elim is fair to the LB winner. If you think being 1:0 up in final would be so unfair why didn´t they complain at HSC? There was also much money on the line. Ok, here is the point we will never have the same opinion
(ok, for the fun: even extended series with hmmm, Bo9 would be fair)
Edit: whoa havn´t that much mistakes in a looooooong time
On August 15 2011 23:44 Tofugrinder wrote: in my opinion there is only one fair final: bo7/9 with no advantage for anyone. no extended series, no 1:0 advantage, no double bo3/5s etc..
That isn't fair at all for the person who hasn't lost a game. Going by your idea, there would be no advantage whatsoever for being the one who advanced through the winners bracket as opposed to the losers one, which is unfair, unjustifiable, and stupid.
On August 16 2011 12:58 dotNova wrote: I have to agree. The finals of a tournament should be exciting to watch; knowing the results spoils that. Getting a fair match with the winner of the winners bracket is a completely fair prize for winning the losers bracket.
Yeah, and it's an unfair prize for winning the winner's bracket, he didn't lose a set, his opponent did.
It's not even footing if someone has used up their extra-life, so you just remove the other person's extra-life to make it more exciting. That's shitting on the sanctity of the competition.
One free game does not compare to the ability to lose a series and keep going, sure you can bring up situations where if someone had gotten a free game, the whole tournament could have been so different but that's not what I'm talking about here, on pure numbers, which is all that matters in terms of fairness, not some situational
Well, that´s the reason I don´t argue normally. 2 guys arguing don´t change their oppinion, so I have to disagree. Having to win 2 Bo5 because you lost one Bo3 in the first round is not "fair" to me. Fighting through 3 more opponent (and 1 more Bo5) isn´t either.
I just don´t think that always double elim is fair to the LB winner. If you think being 1:0 up in final would be so unfair why didn´t they complain at HSC? There was also much money on the line. Ok, here is the point we will never have the same opinion
Edit: whoa havn´t that much mistakes in a looooooong time
I already told you that the HSC final was unfair, but it didn't bother me because of nature of the event, and I guess it was the same for a number of other people. White-ra was fucking barbecuing 20 feet from where the games were going on, players may well have been half-drunk at times.
I already established quite simply, if you want to make it so the tournament is consistently Bo3's throughout, that's fine(I think that's what B.net Invitational did) and I believe that's also what MLG does. That's competitively fair, what the IPL did was not really a proper and fair implementation of the double elimination format as it should be, in my opinion. There should never be a question as to the number of games in a set(In the IPL example, Nerchio lost a Bo3 earlier, White-ra would get to lose a Bo5).
Hopefully that deals with any and all misunderstanding you have about my views on the format.
On August 16 2011 13:01 Phantom_Sky wrote: i agree, not that the original system is unfair or anything
just that it's not exciting and a bit counter-intuitive
if changes to BO7/ BO9 with winner having 1 or two game advantage, it would be more understandable and enjoyable for average viewers
how is it counter-intuitive? It is a double elimination tournament. You have to lose two matches (which is the bo3 or whatever) to be eliminated. The same goes for everyone, including the winner of the WINNER'S bracket. If he loses the first bo3, he is not eliminated. Because it is double elimination and that is his FIRST loss. You have to lose TWICE to be eliminated.
I think a great deal of the problems with these events are created because there are too many entrants. More of the rubbish players should be eliminated before the tournament starts, and a single-elimination BO5 or BO7 tournament with 16 entrants after that. The only other problem is that we don't have an adequate seeding process, because there is no true "regular season" for the tournaments. To solve that a round robin process, after the early rubbish player weeding out process with some subjective scoring as a tiebreaker for seeding would work miracles.
I do not see anything wrong with asking unproven players to show up a day early to the tournament for the right to participate in the round robin seeding process. Those players are all better than I am, but the majority still get stomped even by mid-tier pros like incontrol or idra .
Bo9 o_O, you can't prepare 9 strategies, even bo7 is excessive. Almost every sc2 map has 4 bases as well, which means you have to practise building placement for 36 different positions!!!!
I would really like to see groupplay with seeds -> cupsystem with @ 16-32 players depending on how big MLG wants their tournament to be. And the cupsystem would obviously be single elimination. That is how every other competetive game/sport does it. I've always found it weird that a guy who has lost in round 1 can potentially still end up winning it all as he has faced worse competition than the one who comes from the winners bracket.
I already established quite simply, if you want to make it so the tournament is consistently Bo3's throughout, that's fine(I think that's what B.net Invitational did) and I believe that's also what MLG does. That's competitively fair, what the IPL did was not really a proper and fair implementation of the double elimination format as it should be, in my opinion. There should never be a question as to the number of games in a set(In the IPL example, Nerchio lost a Bo3 earlier, White-ra would get to lose a Bo5).
Ok, now I don´t know what we talked about. I always said winning 2 Bo3 is fair, but it´s anticlimactic
Blizzcon EU invite with one Bo3 as final was quite anticlimatic. US invite was quite fortunate that it went to second Bo3
As well as I always said that having to win Bo5 because of loosing a Bo3 isn´t fair imo
Having to win 2 Bo5 because you lost one Bo3 in the first round is not "fair" to me
But ok, it´s early (late for you), perhaps we just talked at cross purposes
On August 16 2011 03:36 ak1knight wrote: Why does the loser deserve equal footing? What if a tournament had Player A knock Player B down to the losers bracket, neither player loses any more games and they meet again in the final where Player B wins. Why should Player B get the money and glory? Both players have 1 loss and are 1-1 against each other, why does the first series not count?
The Grand Final moniker is used for a reason. The issue ends up stemming from eSports that utilize BoX configurations, and that's where it breaks down. Under another sport or eSport where one match is used, the aspect of the upper winning losing one and re-matching does make sense.
However, I dislike double elimination in BoX eSports because of this. I feel that there is a proper format that would ensure fairness and be a definitive stance of who is actually worthy of winning. It's actually something I've been working on for an article, something hopefully people can relate to.
Counter-Strike suffered from the same problem, where you have essentially four-to-six maps used for a league or tournament pool at any one time. You had the staples, plus whatever the flavor of the time happened to be, whether that be mill, or tuscan etc...
The utilization of double elimination for games centered around use of multiple maps and in BoX configurations is weak. You limit potential when limiting map pool from the entire competitive pool to Bo3/5.
On August 16 2011 00:37 Cartel wrote: I have to say im surprised at the polls suggesting most pple think its not fine the way it is.
Same here.
Then again, there are also always 25-30% of people who are fine with the shitty extended series rule at MLG, so it's hard to fathom wtf people are thinking sometimes.
On August 16 2011 00:21 Bobster wrote: It's as Chill says.
The player from the loser's bracket has to win two BoX because the first one knocks the winner down into the loser's bracket (figuratively) and enables them to play the second BoX on equal standing, thus deciding the ultimate winner.
Having it be just one BoX with a small advantage for the player coming from the WB essentially means that every other player can lose a series and still be in the tournament, except for the guy who won everything so far. He loses one series and doesn't get any second chances. Pretty ridiculous to punish a player for winning in the name of "viewer excitement".
The thing is called Double Elimination because you have to lose twice to be eliminated. Simple.
No, I'd rather see this that all players are allowed to lose one series except in the grand finals, because it weights more than the other sets beforehand.
That seems exceedingly arbitrary to me.
It's a double elimination format except for the finals. I don't think that's logical or particularly fair.
Double elimination is a good tournament format the way it is, I don't see a need to change it.
The "to me" is right. Everything is and always will be depending on one's point of view, fairness is no different from other absolute values such as good or evil, right or wrong, justice, etc. (E.g. in your double elimination rule, one could object that a loss in the early rounds for example in a bo1 is different from a loss in the later rounds in a bo5 and that both shouldn't just be looked upon as the same.)
This opening asked what I'd rather see in the grand finals, and I agree that the player from the winners bracket get an advantage. However, as a viewer, I do not want that advantage to be so big that the winner of the match is already predetermined beforehand.
Most people seem to be missing the point. It is called "Double Elimination" because when you loose two matches you are out.
Most people translate this into a 'winners bracket' and a 'looser's bracket' when really Swiss draw would have paired them up similarly anyway. The fact of the matter is that everyone that has lost a match (i.e. is in the looser's bracket) and looses another match is eliminated. Everyone that has not lost (i.e. the winner's bracket) has to loose two matches to be eliminated.
When you get to the finals you have one player that has not lost a single match, and one player that has already lost one, so you need to play a second if the 'looser' beats the 'winner' as they will both be on one loss each.
Now if you don't like DE as a format then fine, but you need to make sure the seeding is good as with Single Elimination the finals can be played out in the first round if the pairings are bad, at least with DE the second best player will get through the looser's bracket even if they had to play the best player in the first round.
Problems arise when you arbitrarily start changing the values assigned to a match, e.g. as mentioned above going from a bo1 to a bo5, or in the OP when the finals are played as a bo7 with the winner starting off with a game or two in hand.
For tournaments where there are restrictions in the number of games that can be played, e.g. GOM with bo1 round robin going into a bo3 knockout, you need to separate the previous rounds from the 'finals' and can not carry wins / losses over since they were earned under different conditions. Another typical example is a bo3 Single Elimination tournament, with the Grand Finals being played as a bo5 or bo7. In this case performance on the previous rounds is not counted, the final is simply a straight up bo7 (and in this example would be irrelevant as both players would have perfect records going into the finals anyway ).
On August 16 2011 02:47 akalarry wrote: i also disagree with double elimination being anticlimactic. you can't say double elimination is anticlimactic based on sc2 tournaments because there has been no sc2 tournaments that actually used double elimination.
I believe Home Story Cup was DE and was not in the slightest bit anticlimactic.
On August 15 2011 22:59 Ballack wrote: I'm not saying the system isn't fair, the guy from the winners bracket has so far been the best player, and he deserves a headstart, but I do think the head start he gets in these tournaments is over the top. What I would suggest is the big tournaments having a normal best of 7 for finals, where the guy from the winners bracket leads 1-0 when entering game 1.
So you basically mean like in the Homestory Cup?
I really liked homestory cup's finals more than any other double elim final for this reason - Other ones took so much excitement out of the final games, knowing that the player on top needed fully half as many games to win the final as the player from the loser's bracket. Can you imagine something like this happening at an MLG or Blizzard invitational (Momentarily ignoring the extended series rule mucking up an MLG final even more...)
Sheth from losers bracket, naniwa from winner's bracket:
First final match Sheth 2 Naniwa 0
Second final match Sheth 1 Naniwa 2
A final looking like that would leave such a bad taste in my mouth. I vote for the BO7 with a 1 game advantage for the winner's bracket player.
On August 16 2011 02:47 akalarry wrote: i also disagree with double elimination being anticlimactic. you can't say double elimination is anticlimactic based on sc2 tournaments because there has been no sc2 tournaments that actually used double elimination.
I believe Home Story Cup was DE and was not in the slightest bit anticlimactic.
On August 16 2011 02:47 akalarry wrote: i also disagree with double elimination being anticlimactic. you can't say double elimination is anticlimactic based on sc2 tournaments because there has been no sc2 tournaments that actually used double elimination.
I believe Home Story Cup was DE and was not in the slightest bit anticlimactic.
It was also an unfair implementation of Double Elimination, it wasn't real double elimination, Naniwa only lost one set and was eliminated, it's exactly what people are talking about. Great tournament, I didn't really mind that it wasn't fair because of the general atmosphere but yeah, one player didn't get two chances at being eliminated/staying in the tournament. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has to be included in double elimination for it to actually be called double elimination, otherwise it's "Double elimination(for everyone except that guy".
The Battle.net Invitational was real double elimination I believe, it was Bo3s all the way through, with the final LB player having to win two Bo3s and the WB finalist having to win one. That's how double elimination is supposed to be.
Otherwise use single elimination and make the games a Bo5 or something.
EPT
No advantage... why should the the player from the WINNER's bracket need an advantage anyways? (I say the player that wins the winners bracket should just get a small money bonus for their winner's domination)
Bo7 with winner 1:0 up was played at HomeStoryCup for example. An representative poll from Pros would be interesting
).
